By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Why does Fox News have problems with Flower?

fordy on 16 September 2011
FinalEvangelion said:
To make Fox new happy, this is the type of game you need.

A strategy game where you are managing an oil company. When you need oil from some small Middle East country, you can ask the US military to invade the country and convince the public it's part of the war against terrorism. After invading the country, you get bonus points for building Protestant churches in the countries to convert the masses. Also, you should be able to lobby congress to ease on environmental regulations.


Why lobby when you can become Vice Persident and puppet the President into doing whatever you want?



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 17 September 2011
osamanobama said:

so, because you dont have an answer to other groups that cant marry other groups, you call it irrelevent. So you think that since a man cant marry a man, they dont have rights that i do, even though i too cant marry a man (therefore we have the same rights), but when it comes to marrying your cousin, it doesnt matter if they cant marry each other. hypocritical much.

its too funny you dont have any facts to back up you silly illogical statements

so, because you doubt something, it makes history untrue. lol.

so, you are basically calling Clinton and all the gay people of yesterday, brainless.

 

So again, your reading comprehension permitting, what rights do i currently have that gays do not? please tell me, im dieing to know (im sure your dying to know this too, you probably hoping that someone else can think of one, since you clearly cannot). try learning something about my country and our laws and recent history, it will serve you well, or just stay silent on topics you know nothing about. either one

No, I call it irrelevant because it's irrelevant.

I already explained why gays not being allowed to marry is discriminatory. It's also plain obvious why. The problem is that your reading comprehension is lacking (another case of you seeing your own faults in other people). With you a conversation is you asking the same question over and over again, despite the fact that you already got the answer (either you're purposely ignoring it, because you don't like it, or you can't put your head around it).

Also, maybe you should learn a little more about your own country. First cousin marriage is permitted in over half the states in the US (and most allow half cousin marriages, or marriages with first cousins once removed).

And Clinton wanted to allow gays to serve in the military, but congress wouldn't allow him, so he created DADT as a 'compromise', but in reality the law didn't change things at all, since gays still weren't allowed to serve in the military (he had promised that gays would be allowed to serve, but he caved due to pressure fro manti-gay groups). As I said, this is plain obvious, and if you can't see this, then I assume euphanisms in general manage to decieve you. And considering that gays were compaigning to get DADT repelled, I do wonder where you get that they ever agreed with it. Maybe they saw it as a 'step in the right direction', but definately not the desirable solution.

Look at me, most of this post is actually a repeat of several things I've already said. I will not be repeating nay of this again. So if you still haven't gotten it, tough luck.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Player1x3 on 17 September 2011
sapphi_snake said:
osamanobama said:

so, because you dont have an answer to other groups that cant marry other groups, you call it irrelevent. So you think that since a man cant marry a man, they dont have rights that i do, even though i too cant marry a man (therefore we have the same rights), but when it comes to marrying your cousin, it doesnt matter if they cant marry each other. hypocritical much.

its too funny you dont have any facts to back up you silly illogical statements

so, because you doubt something, it makes history untrue. lol.

so, you are basically calling Clinton and all the gay people of yesterday, brainless.

 

So again, your reading comprehension permitting, what rights do i currently have that gays do not? please tell me, im dieing to know (im sure your dying to know this too, you probably hoping that someone else can think of one, since you clearly cannot). try learning something about my country and our laws and recent history, it will serve you well, or just stay silent on topics you know nothing about. either one

No, I call it irrelevant because it's irrelevant.

I already explained why gays not being allowed to marry is discriminatory. It's also plain obvious why. The problem is that your reading comprehension is lacking (another case of you seeing your own faults in other people). With you a conversation is you asking the same question over and over again, despite the fact that you already got the answer (either you're purposely ignoring it, because you don't like it, or you can't put your head around it).

Also, maybe you should learn a little more about your own country. First cousin marriage is permitted in over half the states in the US (and most allow half cousin marriages, or marriages with first cousins once removed).

And Clinton wanted to allow gays to serve in the military, but congress wouldn't allow him, so he created DADT as a 'compromise', but in reality the law didn't change things at all, since gays still weren't allowed to serve in the military (he had promised that gays would be allowed to serve, but he caved due to pressure fro manti-gay groups). As I said, this is plain obvious, and if you can't see this, then I assume euphanisms in general manage to decieve you. And considering that gays were compaigning to get DADT repelled, I do wonder where you get that they ever agreed with it. Maybe they saw it as a 'step in the right direction', but definately not the desirable solution.

Look at me, most of this post is actually a repeat of several things I've already said. I will not be repeating nay of this again. So if you still haven't gotten it, tough luck.


Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.

And banned in 3....2......1

BAM

Oh well



FinalEvangelion on 17 September 2011
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
osamanobama said:

so, because you dont have an answer to other groups that cant marry other groups, you call it irrelevent. So you think that since a man cant marry a man, they dont have rights that i do, even though i too cant marry a man (therefore we have the same rights), but when it comes to marrying your cousin, it doesnt matter if they cant marry each other. hypocritical much.

its too funny you dont have any facts to back up you silly illogical statements

so, because you doubt something, it makes history untrue. lol.

so, you are basically calling Clinton and all the gay people of yesterday, brainless.

 

So again, your reading comprehension permitting, what rights do i currently have that gays do not? please tell me, im dieing to know (im sure your dying to know this too, you probably hoping that someone else can think of one, since you clearly cannot). try learning something about my country and our laws and recent history, it will serve you well, or just stay silent on topics you know nothing about. either one

No, I call it irrelevant because it's irrelevant.

I already explained why gays not being allowed to marry is discriminatory. It's also plain obvious why. The problem is that your reading comprehension is lacking (another case of you seeing your own faults in other people). With you a conversation is you asking the same question over and over again, despite the fact that you already got the answer (either you're purposely ignoring it, because you don't like it, or you can't put your head around it).

Also, maybe you should learn a little more about your own country. First cousin marriage is permitted in over half the states in the US (and most allow half cousin marriages, or marriages with first cousins once removed).

And Clinton wanted to allow gays to serve in the military, but congress wouldn't allow him, so he created DADT as a 'compromise', but in reality the law didn't change things at all, since gays still weren't allowed to serve in the military (he had promised that gays would be allowed to serve, but he caved due to pressure fro manti-gay groups). As I said, this is plain obvious, and if you can't see this, then I assume euphanisms in general manage to decieve you. And considering that gays were compaigning to get DADT repelled, I do wonder where you get that they ever agreed with it. Maybe they saw it as a 'step in the right direction', but definately not the desirable solution.

Look at me, most of this post is actually a repeat of several things I've already said. I will not be repeating nay of this again. So if you still haven't gotten it, tough luck.


Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.

And banned in 3....2......1

BAM

Oh well


That's a stereotype.  I've known several gay people that you would never know were gay because they do act so masculine.  Whether they are covering it up or not, I don't know.



"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."  --Hermann Goering, leading Nazi party member, at the Nuremberg War Crime Trials 

 

Conservatives:  Pushing for a small enough government to be a guest in your living room, or even better - your uterus.

 

Player1x3 on 17 September 2011
FinalEvangelion said:
Player1x3 said:
sapphi_snake said:
osamanobama said:

so, because you dont have an answer to other groups that cant marry other groups, you call it irrelevent. So you think that since a man cant marry a man, they dont have rights that i do, even though i too cant marry a man (therefore we have the same rights), but when it comes to marrying your cousin, it doesnt matter if they cant marry each other. hypocritical much.

its too funny you dont have any facts to back up you silly illogical statements

so, because you doubt something, it makes history untrue. lol.

so, you are basically calling Clinton and all the gay people of yesterday, brainless.

 

So again, your reading comprehension permitting, what rights do i currently have that gays do not? please tell me, im dieing to know (im sure your dying to know this too, you probably hoping that someone else can think of one, since you clearly cannot). try learning something about my country and our laws and recent history, it will serve you well, or just stay silent on topics you know nothing about. either one

No, I call it irrelevant because it's irrelevant.

I already explained why gays not being allowed to marry is discriminatory. It's also plain obvious why. The problem is that your reading comprehension is lacking (another case of you seeing your own faults in other people). With you a conversation is you asking the same question over and over again, despite the fact that you already got the answer (either you're purposely ignoring it, because you don't like it, or you can't put your head around it).

Also, maybe you should learn a little more about your own country. First cousin marriage is permitted in over half the states in the US (and most allow half cousin marriages, or marriages with first cousins once removed).

And Clinton wanted to allow gays to serve in the military, but congress wouldn't allow him, so he created DADT as a 'compromise', but in reality the law didn't change things at all, since gays still weren't allowed to serve in the military (he had promised that gays would be allowed to serve, but he caved due to pressure fro manti-gay groups). As I said, this is plain obvious, and if you can't see this, then I assume euphanisms in general manage to decieve you. And considering that gays were compaigning to get DADT repelled, I do wonder where you get that they ever agreed with it. Maybe they saw it as a 'step in the right direction', but definately not the desirable solution.

Look at me, most of this post is actually a repeat of several things I've already said. I will not be repeating nay of this again. So if you still haven't gotten it, tough luck.


Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.

And banned in 3....2......1

BAM

Oh well


That's a stereotype.  I've known several gay people that you would never know were gay because they do act so masculine.  Whether they are covering it up or not, I don't know.


not really a stereotype, more like generalization. There are quite the few exceptions,of course, but majority of them are like i described



Around the Network
Runa216 on 17 September 2011
Player1x3 said:


not really a stereotype, more like generalization. There are quite the few exceptions,of course, but majority of them are like i described


yep, and all the black people I meet love fried chicken and watermelon, all the women I meet are emotionally insecure pussies, all the americans I meet are ignorant, xenophobic gun worshippers, all the canadians I meet are meek, feeble nice guys, and all aussies I meet are rough crocodile hunters with a particular fondness for hunting knifes.  

Yep, that's not ignorant at all. 

I've spent a lot of time with a lot of gay dudes (I'm involved in the local LBGT groups), and I assure you one thing:  Guys who want guys want MEN, if they wanted prissy prettyboys they'd date women.  (As one gay dude put it) 

One of my gay friends is a cop who could kick your ass three ways from sunday, another is a football player, another is a professional paintballer, another is a farm worker.  You might do yourself well to stop with the stereotyping or I may have to resort to pointing out your accurate stereotypes!  I mean, you're just like every other arrogant, ignorant, closeminded, judgemental christian I've met! 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

osamanobama on 17 September 2011
sapphi_snake said:
osamanobama said:

so, because you dont have an answer to other groups that cant marry other groups, you call it irrelevent. So you think that since a man cant marry a man, they dont have rights that i do, even though i too cant marry a man (therefore we have the same rights), but when it comes to marrying your cousin, it doesnt matter if they cant marry each other. hypocritical much.

its too funny you dont have any facts to back up you silly illogical statements

so, because you doubt something, it makes history untrue. lol.

so, you are basically calling Clinton and all the gay people of yesterday, brainless.

 

So again, your reading comprehension permitting, what rights do i currently have that gays do not? please tell me, im dieing to know (im sure your dying to know this too, you probably hoping that someone else can think of one, since you clearly cannot). try learning something about my country and our laws and recent history, it will serve you well, or just stay silent on topics you know nothing about. either one

No, I call it irrelevant because it's irrelevant.

I already explained why gays not being allowed to marry is discriminatory. It's also plain obvious why. The problem is that your reading comprehension is lacking (another case of you seeing your own faults in other people). With you a conversation is you asking the same question over and over again, despite the fact that you already got the answer (either you're purposely ignoring it, because you don't like it, or you can't put your head around it).

Also, maybe you should learn a little more about your own country. First cousin marriage is permitted in over half the states in the US (and most allow half cousin marriages, or marriages with first cousins once removed).

And Clinton wanted to allow gays to serve in the military, but congress wouldn't allow him, so he created DADT as a 'compromise', but in reality the law didn't change things at all, since gays still weren't allowed to serve in the military (he had promised that gays would be allowed to serve, but he caved due to pressure fro manti-gay groups). As I said, this is plain obvious, and if you can't see this, then I assume euphanisms in general manage to decieve you. And considering that gays were compaigning to get DADT repelled, I do wonder where you get that they ever agreed with it. Maybe they saw it as a 'step in the right direction', but definately not the desirable solution.

Look at me, most of this post is actually a repeat of several things I've already said. I will not be repeating nay of this again. So if you still haven't gotten it, tough luck.

and gays can marry in some states.. just like cousins... yet you only claim gays or discriminated against. hmm why is that. also people still cant marry multiple people. and frankly i dont really give i shit who YOU think is discriminated against. the facts are i have the same rights as every one else.

i will try to put this in very very simple terms, using as small of words as possible, in order to help you understand.

I can not marry a man. my sister can not marry a woman.

Gay tony cannot marry a man. my gay female cousin cannot marry a woman.

we have the exact same "rights" as any other person. get it. is it really that hard. if you need understanding it, i will be glad to attempt to use easier words.

 

and i fail to see why you arent fighting for the "rights" of people you want to marry their sister, or mother, or 2 of their sisters, or both their mother and father. or just 10 people



sapphi_snake on 17 September 2011
Player1x3 said:


Sapphi, there is a reason for that. Most gays arent army material. They dont fit there. Lots of men in the army are tough, masculine, high on y chromosome soldiers. Gays usually are feminine, gentle, extra x chromosome guys who aren't into violence. Most of them wouldn't fit ther and would most certainly have problems with their fellow soldiers, which is highly dangerous in the army. Thats why there is DADN. It allows gays to serve the army if they want, and its in both in their best interest and the army's.

And banned in 3....2......1

BAM

Oh well

Not only are you stereotyping and being offensive (I'm quite curious how many gay people you even know), but your entire post doesn't even make sense. The underlined part is in no way a logical solution to the part in italics.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake on 17 September 2011
Player1x3 said:


not really a stereotype, more like generalization. There are quite the few exceptions,of course, but majority of them are like i described

Have you gone through the process of verification in order to confirm check the validity of your little generalization?



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake on 17 September 2011
osamanobama said:

and gays can marry in some states.. just like cousins... yet you only claim gays or discriminated against. hmm why is that. also people still cant marry multiple people. and frankly i dont really give i shit who YOU think is discriminated against. the facts are i have the same rights as every one else.

i will try to put this in very very simple terms, using as small of words as possible, in order to help you understand.

I can not marry a man. my sister can not marry a woman.

Gay tony cannot marry a man. my gay female cousin cannot marry a woman.

we have the exact same "rights" as any other person. get it. is it really that hard. if you need understanding it, i will be glad to attempt to use easier words.

 

and i fail to see why you arent fighting for the "rights" of people you want to marry their sister, or mother, or 2 of their sisters, or both their mother and father. or just 10 people

I am not gonna repeat myself. You're a lost case. There really is no point to saying anymore. You're just further proof that things like civil rights shouldn't be subjected to the vote of the masses.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)